list_issues

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only says 'List', which implies a read operation, but it does not explain pagination defaults, state defaults, issue ordering, or any other observable behavior an agent would need to anticipate when invoking the tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It immediately communicates the action, resource, and the existence of filtering options, making it appropriately concise for the tool's simplicity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description is minimally adequate for a straightforward list operation, especially with full schema coverage. However, with no output schema, no annotations, and a large sibling set, it does not mention pagination behavior, default issue state, or when to prefer search_issues over list_issues, leaving meaningful gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters with individual descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no extra parameter-level meaning beyond 'filtering options', but because the schema already documents page, repo, owner, state, labels, and perPage, the description does not need to compensate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description states a clear verb and resource: 'List issues in a GitLab repository' and signals filtering. It is unambiguous about the core operation, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling search_issues or get_issue tools, so it falls short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies when to use the tool: to list and filter issues in a repository. However, it provides no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which alternative sibling tool to choose, such as search_issues for cross-repository search or get_issue for a single issue.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.